Yoma — Daf 61b

אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו באנו למחלוקת ר' מאיר ור' אלעזר ור' שמעון ר' מאיר דאמר יביא אחר ויתחיל בתחילה הכא נמי יביא אחר וישחוט

ולר' אלעזר ור' שמעון שאומרים ממקום שפסק משם הוא מתחיל הכא אין לו תקנה

מתקיף ליה רב חסדא והא (ויקרא יד, יב) אותו כתיב קשיא

תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן אשם מצורע ששחטו שלא לשמו או שלא נתן מדמו לגבי בהונות הרי זה עולה לגבי מזבח וטעון נסכים וצריך אשם אחר להכשירו ורב חסדא אמר לך מאי צריך צריך ואין לו תקנה

ותני תנא צריך ואין לו תקנה אין והתניא נזיר ממורט ב"ש אומרים צריך העברת תער וב"ה אומרים אין צריך העברת תער וא"ר אבינא כשאומרים בית שמאי צריך צריך ואין לו תקנה

ופליגא דר' פדת דאמר רבי פדת בית שמאי ורבי אלעזר אמרו דבר אחד בית שמאי הא דאמרן רבי אלעזר (דתניא) אין לו בוהן יד ובוהן רגל אין לו טהרה עולמית רבי אלעזר אומר נותן על מקומו ויוצא רבי שמעון אומר אם נתן על של שמאל יצא

תנו רבנן (ויקרא יד, יד) ולקח מדם האשם יכול בכלי ת"ל ונתן מה נתינה בעצמו של כהן אף לקיחה בעצמו של כהן

יכול אף למזבח כן ת"ל (ויקרא יד, יג) כי כחטאת האשם הוא מה חטאת טעונה כלי אף אשם טעון כלי נמצאת אתה אומר אשם מצורע שני כהנים מקבלים את דמו אחד ביד ואחד בכלי זה שקבל בכלי בא לו אצל מזבח וזה שקיבל ביד בא לו אצל מצורע

תנן התם וכולן מטמאים בגדים ונשרפין אבית הדשן דברי ר"א ור' שמעון וחכמים אומרים אין מטמאין בגדים ואין נשרפין אבית הדשן אלא האחרון הואיל וגמר בו כפרה

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן כמה שעירים משלח א"ל וכי עדרו משלח אמר לו

R. Johanan said: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose,1 — therein we find a dispute between [on the one hand] R. Meir, and R. Eleazar and R. Simeon [on the other]. R. Meir, who said he must bring another one and start all over from the beginning, would here consistently hold that he must bring another [animal as] guilt-offering and slay it, whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who say: He shall start at the place he had left off before, would hold that here there is no redress.2 R. Hisda demurred to them: Surely it is written: ‘It’3 — This is a refutation. It was taught in accord with R. Johanan: If the guilt-offering of a leper had been slaughtered not for its own purpose, or if one had not sprinkled of its blood upon the thumbs and toes, it is considered a burnt-offering in regard to the altar and requires the [prescribed]4 libations and he requires another guilt-offering to render him right again.5 — And R. Hisda? — He will answer you: What means, he requires? — He requires, but he has no remedy [to get it]. But would a Tanna teach: ‘He requires’ when he has no remedy [of getting it]? Indeed, as it was also taught: [Concerning] a baldheaded nazirite Beth Shammai taught he requires to pass through a razor [over his head],6 whereas Beth Hillel said: He need not pass through a razor [over his head]. And R. Abina said: When Beth Shammai say: It is necessary, [they mean] he requires to [do so] but he has no remedy.7 He thus contradicts R.Pedath, for R. Pedath said: Beth Shammai and R. Eleazar say one and the same thing. ‘Beth Shammai’, as we have stated above, and ‘R. Eleazar’ as we have learnt:8 If he9 have no thumb or toe, he9 can never obtain purity. R. Eleazar said: One should place it on the place due, and thereby the duty is done. R. Simeon said: If he placed it on [the thumb and toe of] the right, he has done his duty. Our Rabbis taught: And the priest shall take [receive] of the blood of the guilt-offering10 — one might have assumed that is to be done with a vessel, therefore the text reads: ‘And he shall put it’ i.e., just as the ‘putting’ must be done by the priest himself, so must the ‘taking’ be by the priest himself. One might have assumed the same applied to the blood which is to be used for [sprinkling upon] the altar, therefore the text reads: For as the sin-offering . . . so is the guilt-offering.11 Just as a vessel is necessary [for receiving the blood of a] sin-offering,12 so is a vessel necessary [for the blood of] the guilt-offering. You thus find yourself stating that in the case of the guilt-offering of the leper two priests receive the blood thereof, one in his hand,13 the other in a vessel.14 The first who receives it in the vessel proceeds to the altar, whereas the other who receives it in his hand goes to the leper. We have learnt there: All of them15 render the garments levitically impure and are to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited. This is the opinion of R. Eleazar and R. Simeon. The Sages say: They do not render the garments ritually unclean and they are not to be burnt in the place where the ashes are deposited, except the last one because with that he completed the atonement. — Raba asked the following question of R. Nahman: How many he-goats is he to send away?16 — He answered: Should he perhaps send his flock away?17 — He said to him: owner in fulfillment of his duty and the owner must consequently bring anew the offering which was due from him.] incomplete guilt-offering as not offered and would require another guilt-offering; whereas R. Eleazar and R. Simeon, who do not disregard that part of the service which had been performed, would hold that he cannot bring a new guilt-offering as Scripture explicitly states ‘One lamb for a guilt offering’ (Lev. XIV, 12) and not two.] unequivocal statement of the Torah R. Meir too must accept, hence the interpretation just offered is to be rejected. view that he can bring a new guilt-offering, which supports R. Johanan. fulfilled, i.e., but when the days are fulfilled he shall have his hair cut. completion of the individual atonement or the whole service in question, and for which substitutes are obligatory, must be burnt outside the three camps (that of the priests, the Levites, and of Israel) and they render the garments of those occupied with burning impure. Lev. XVI, 27-28. case he has to bring anew two goats and cast lots afresh.]